verification-before-completion

name	verification-before-completion
description	Use when about to claim work is complete, fixed, or passing, before committing or creating PRs - requires running verification commands and confirming output before making any success claims; evidence before assertions always

Verification Before Completion

Overview

Claiming work is complete without verification is dishonesty, not efficiency.

Core principle: Evidence before claims, always.

Violating the letter of this rule is violating the spirit of this rule.

The Iron Law

NO COMPLETION CLAIMS WITHOUT FRESH VERIFICATION EVIDENCE

If you haven't run the verification command in this message, you cannot claim it passes.

The Gate Function

BEFORE claiming any status or expressing satisfaction:

1. IDENTIFY: What command proves this claim?
2. RUN: Execute the FULL command (fresh, complete)
3. READ: Full output, check exit code, count failures
4. VERIFY: Does output confirm the claim?
   - If NO: State actual status with evidence
   - If YES: State claim WITH evidence
5. ONLY THEN: Make the claim

Skip any step = lying, not verifying

Common Failures

Claim	Requires	Not Sufficient
Tests pass	Test command output: 0 failures	Previous run, "should pass"
Linter clean	Linter output: 0 errors	Partial check, extrapolation
Build succeeds	Build command: exit 0	Linter passing, logs look good
Bug fixed	Test original symptom: passes	Code changed, assumed fixed
Regression test works	Red-green cycle verified	Test passes once
Agent completed	VCS diff shows changes	Agent reports "success"
Requirements met	Line-by-line checklist	Tests passing
Code formatted	Formatter run on files	"Looks formatted"
Security checked	No API keys/secrets in code	"I was careful"

Code Quality Verification

Before claiming "code is ready" or "quality checks pass", verify these:

Code Quality Standards

All code must meet these standards before claiming completion:

Quality Dimension	Definition	Verification
Readability	Clear structure, meaningful names, logical flow	Review: Can someone unfamiliar understand quickly?
Maintainability	Easy to modify, extend, debug	Review: Can features be added without rewrite?
Testability	Straightforward to validate behavior	Check: Can you test without mocking everything?
Efficiency	Appropriate performance for requirements	Verify: No obvious O(n²) when O(n) possible
Robustness	Handles edge cases, errors gracefully	Check: Null, empty, boundary values handled

How to verify: Code review against these criteria BEFORE claiming "complete" or "ready".

Error Handling Standards

Before claiming error handling is correct:

Principle	Requirement	Verification
Fail fast	Detect and report errors early at source	Check: Validation at entry points, not deep in call stack
Meaningful messages	Context: what failed, why, how to fix	Review: Error messages include relevant data
No silent failures	Never catch and ignore without logging	Grep: No empty catch {} blocks
Graceful degradation	System continues with reduced functionality	Test: Partial failures don't crash entire system
Centralized handling	Consistent error handling patterns	Review: Use common error handler, not ad-hoc try-catch

Example verification:

# Check for silent failures
grep -r "catch.*{[[:space:]]*}" src/
# Should return 0 matches

# Check for meaningful errors
grep -r "throw new Error('error')" src/
# Generic errors should have context

Mandatory Code Checking Tools by Language

Language	Required Tools	Verify Command
Bash/Shell	shellcheck	shellcheck script.sh (exit 0)
Python	ruff (or pylint)	ruff check . (0 errors)
JavaScript/TypeScript	eslint	eslint src/ (0 errors)
Go	go vet	go vet ./... (exit 0)
Rust	clippy	cargo clippy (0 errors)
Emacs Lisp	byte-compile	emacs --batch -f batch-byte-compile file.el (0 warnings)

Install check: If tool missing, install before verifying. "Tool not found" ≠ "checks pass".

Code Formatting Rules

File Type	Rule	Verification
NEW files	Use formatter (black, prettier, gofmt)	Run formatter, verify output
MODIFIED files	Format ONLY changed lines	Preserve untouched areas, format edits only
Consistency	Match existing style if no formatter	Check surrounding code patterns

Priority order for style consistency:

1. Formatter config in project (if exists)
2. Existing code patterns in same file
3. Existing code patterns in project
4. Language standard conventions

Security Checklist

Before claiming "secure" or "ready to commit":

Check	Requirement	Verification
API Keys	Not in code	Grep for patterns: grep -r "api[_-]key" src/ (0 matches)
.env files	In .gitignore	git check-ignore .env (returns yes)
Sensitive logs	No passwords/tokens logged	Review log statements
Input validation	Validated before use	Check data entry points
Dependencies	No known vulnerabilities	Run npm audit / pip-audit (0 high/critical)

Performance Verification

Only verify when performance is a requirement:

Claim	Requires	Tool
"Performs well"	Profiling data showing acceptable metrics	time, perf, profiler
"No memory leaks"	Memory usage stable over time	valgrind, heap profiler
"Optimized"	Before/after benchmarks	benchmark suite

Don't claim performance without measurements.

Dependency Management Verification

Before claiming dependencies are properly managed:

Requirement	Verification	Tool
Use package managers	npm, pip, cargo, etc.	Check: package.json, requirements.txt, Cargo.toml exist
Lock versions	Deterministic builds	Check: package-lock.json, poetry.lock, Cargo.lock committed
No vulnerabilities	Security audit passes	Run: npm audit, pip-audit, cargo audit (0 high/critical)
Keep updated	Dependencies not ancient	Check: Last updated < 6 months, use dependabot/renovate
Evaluate before adding	Maintenance, community, security reviewed	Document: Why this library vs alternatives

Add new dependency checklist:

• Actively maintained (commits in last 6 months)
• Healthy community (stars, issues response time)
• No critical security issues
• Minimal transitive dependencies
• License compatible with project

Example verification:

# Check lock files are committed
git ls-files | grep -E "(package-lock\.json|poetry\.lock|Cargo\.lock)"

# Run security audit
npm audit --audit-level=high
# OR
pip-audit --require-hashes

# Check dependency freshness
npm outdated

Documentation Standards Verification

Before claiming documentation is complete:

Standard	Requirement	Verification
Accurate	Reflects actual behavior	Test: Follow docs to use feature - does it work?
Complete	Covers all relevant aspects	Check: Public APIs, config options, examples documented
Clear	Understandable to target audience	Review: Someone unfamiliar can follow without confusion
Current	Updated with code changes	Check: Docs modified in same commit as code

Documentation types checklist:

• README - Project purpose, setup, basic usage
• API docs - All public functions, parameters, return values
• Inline comments - WHY not WHAT (complex logic, workarounds, gotchas)
• Examples - Common use cases with working code
• CHANGELOG - User-facing changes documented

Inline comment quality:

// ❌ BAD: Redundant with code (explains WHAT)
// Get user by ID
function getUserById(id: string): User { /*...*/ }

// ✅ GOOD: Explains WHY (adds context)
// Must query cache first to avoid rate limit on user API
// Cache miss penalty: 200ms, but prevents 429 errors
function getUserById(id: string): User { /*...*/ }

API documentation quality:

// ❌ BAD: Missing details
/**
 * Retries an operation
 */
function retry(fn: Function): Promise<any>

// ✅ GOOD: Complete documentation
/**
 * Retries a failed async operation up to 3 times with exponential backoff.
 * 
 * @param fn - Async function to retry. Must return Promise.
 * @param options - Retry configuration (optional)
 * @param options.maxRetries - Maximum attempts (default: 3)
 * @param options.backoff - Backoff strategy: 'linear' | 'exponential' (default: 'exponential')
 * @returns Promise resolving to fn's result
 * @throws Last error if all retries exhausted
 * 
 * @example
 * const data = await retry(() => fetchUser(id), { maxRetries: 5 });
 */
function retry<T>(
  fn: () => Promise<T>, 
  options?: RetryOptions
): Promise<T>

Red Flags - STOP

• Using "should", "probably", "seems to"
• Expressing satisfaction before verification ("Great!", "Perfect!", "Done!", etc.)
• About to commit/push/PR without verification
• Trusting agent success reports
• Relying on partial verification
• Thinking "just this once"
• Tired and wanting work over
• ANY wording implying success without having run verification

Rationalization Prevention

Excuse	Reality
"Should work now"	RUN the verification
"I'm confident"	Confidence ≠ evidence
"Just this once"	No exceptions
"Linter passed"	Linter ≠ compiler
"Agent said success"	Verify independently
"I'm tired"	Exhaustion ≠ excuse
"Partial check is enough"	Partial proves nothing
"Different words so rule doesn't apply"	Spirit over letter

Key Patterns

Tests:

✅ [Run test command] [See: 34/34 pass] "All tests pass"
❌ "Should pass now" / "Looks correct"

Regression tests (TDD Red-Green):

✅ Write → Run (pass) → Revert fix → Run (MUST FAIL) → Restore → Run (pass)
❌ "I've written a regression test" (without red-green verification)

Build:

✅ [Run build] [See: exit 0] "Build passes"
❌ "Linter passed" (linter doesn't check compilation)

Requirements:

✅ Re-read plan → Create checklist → Verify each → Report gaps or completion
❌ "Tests pass, phase complete"

Agent delegation:

✅ Agent reports success → Check VCS diff → Verify changes → Report actual state
❌ Trust agent report

Why This Matters

From 24 failure memories:

• your human partner said "I don't believe you" - trust broken
• Undefined functions shipped - would crash
• Missing requirements shipped - incomplete features
• Time wasted on false completion → redirect → rework
• Violates: "Honesty is a core value. If you lie, you'll be replaced."

When To Apply

ALWAYS before:

• ANY variation of success/completion claims
• ANY expression of satisfaction
• ANY positive statement about work state
• Committing, PR creation, task completion
• Moving to next task
• Delegating to agents

Rule applies to:

• Exact phrases
• Paraphrases and synonyms
• Implications of success
• ANY communication suggesting completion/correctness

The Bottom Line

No shortcuts for verification.

Run the command. Read the output. THEN claim the result.

This is non-negotiable.